check_tool_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return types (active, deceased, acquired) and associated data (date, cause, alternatives), but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or precise response format. Acceptable for a simple status check.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first explains what it does and returns, second provides usage guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded with essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, return values, and usage context. Minor details like error handling or exact date format are omitted but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter. Description provides an example ('Jasper' or 'jasper-ai') adding mild extra value, but mostly restates the schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool checks whether an AI tool is 'still alive' and returns statuses (active, deceased, acquired) with details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tools' or 'search_tools' by focusing on a single tool's viability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly advises using this tool before recommending a tool to avoid suggesting defunct ones. Though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.